Farley v. Virga et al

Filing 100

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/10/2015 GRANTING defendants' 99 motion for clarification; and the 4/2/2015 scheduling order, including all dates set therein, also applies to defendant Curren. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM D. FARLEY,

12

No. 2:13-cv-1751 WBS KJN P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

T. VIRGA, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for clarification of the scheduling order.

17
18

(ECF No. 99.) On March 30, 2015, defendants Meier, Stewart, Scogin, Gonzales, Higgins,

19

Delaney and May filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 95.) The April 2, 2015 scheduling

20

order states that it applies to these defendants. (ECF No. 97.)
In the pending request, defendants state that on January 30, 2015, defendant Curren filed

21
22

an answer. (ECF No. 90.) Defendants request clarification regarding whether the scheduling

23

order applies to defendant Curren.

24

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. Defendants’ motion for clarification (ECF No. 99) is granted;

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1

2. The April 2, 2015 scheduling order, including all dates set therein, also applies to

2

defendant Curren.

3

Dated: April 10, 2015

4
5
6
7
8

Far1751.cla

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2